Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:16:33.016Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Separating Candidate Valence and Proximity Voting: Determinants of Competitors’ Non-Policy Appeal*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2016

Dominic Nyhuis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous scholarship has provided ample evidence that non-spatial considerations can trump voters’ policy preferences in candidate selections. The literature has been less successful, however, in providing a sense of the factors that raise candidates’ non-policy appeal. Faced with the challenging task of separating policy and non-policy aspects of individual vote choices, empirical research has frequently relied on shorthand measures like candidate incumbency. This paper separates the valence component from policy-based candidate selections by explicitly supplying voters with information on the policy agreement between themselves and their district candidates. Relying on the distinction between campaign valence and character valence by Stone and Simas, it is shown that candidate valence is driven by candidate visibility in a party-dominated political system.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , January 2018 , pp. 135 - 151
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Dominic Nyhuis, Department of Political Science, Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor-W.-Adorno-Platz 6, 60323 Frankfurt ([email protected]). The author is grateful for feedback on the ideas that are put forth in this paper by Jens Brandenburg, Sean Carey, and Thomas Gschwend. The author is particularly indebted to Martin Elff, Lukas Stötzer, and Steffen Zittlau for invaluable suggestions that have greatly improved the paper. The author also likes to express the gratitude to the curators of the platform http://www.abgeordnetenwatch.de, specifically Martin Reyher and Roman Ebener, for allowing the author to run the additional questionnaire on their site.

References

Ackermann, Kathrin, and Traunmüller, Richard. 2014. ‘Jenseits von Schwerkraft und Höllenfeuer: Nicht-lineare Kontexteffekte auf den Zusammenhang von religiöser Gruppenzugehörigkeit und individuellem Wahlverhalten bei fünf Bundestagswahlen’. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 55(1):33–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, and Merrill, Samuel III. 2003. ‘Voter Turnout and Candidate Strategies in American Elections’. Journal of Politics 65(1):161–189.Google Scholar
Adams, James, Merrill, Samuel III, Simas, Elizabeth N., and Stone, Walter J.. 2011. ‘When Candidates Value Good Character. A Spatial Model with Applications to Congressional Elections’. Journal of Politics 73(1):17–30.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stehen, and Snyder, James M. Jr. 2000. ‘Valence Politics and Equilibrium in Spatial Election Models’. Public Choice 103(3/4):327–336.Google Scholar
Aragones, Enriqueta. 2002. ‘Mixed equilibrium in a Downsian model with a favoured candidate’. Journal of Economic Theory 103(1):131–161.Google Scholar
Aragones, Enriqueta, and Palfrey, Thomas R.. 2004. ‘The Effect of Candidate Quality on Electoral Equilibrium. An Experimental Study’. American Political Science Review 98(1):77–90.Google Scholar
Ashworth, Scott, and Bueno de Mesquita, Ethan. 2009. ‘Elections with Platform and Valence Competition’. Games and Economic Behavior 67(1):191–216.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1988. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2002a, ‘Beyond the Running Tally. Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions’. Political Behavior 24(2):117–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2002b, ‘The Impact of Candidate Traits in American Presidential Elections’. In Anthony King (ed.), Leaders’ Personalities and the Outcome of Democratic Elections. 44–69. Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bernhardt, Dan, Camara, Odilon, and Squintani, Francesco. 2011. ‘Competence and Ideology’. Review of Economic Studies 78(2):487–522.Google Scholar
Berry, William D., Berkman, Michael B., and Schneiderman, Stuart. 2000. ‘Legislative Professionalism and Incumbent Reelection. The Development of Institutional Boundaries’. American Political Science Review 94(4):859–874.Google Scholar
Blais, André. 2010. ‘Making Electoral Democracy Work’. Electoral Studies 29(1):169–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bräuninger, Thomas, and Debus, Marc. 2008. ‘Der Einfluss von Koalitionsaussagen, programmatischen Standpunkten und der Bundespolitik auf die Regierungsbildung in den deutschen Ländern’. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 49(2):309–338.Google Scholar
Burden, Barry C. 2004. ‘Candidate Positioning in US Congressional Elections’. British Journal of Political Science 34(2):211–227.Google Scholar
Buttice, Matthew K., and Stone, Walter J.. 2012. ‘Candidates Matter. Policy and Quality Differences in Congressional Elections’. Journal of Politics 74(3):870–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cedroni, Lorella, and Garzia, Diego (eds) 2010. Voting Advice Applications in Europe. The State of the Art. Naples, Italy: ScriptaWeb.Google Scholar
Clark, Michael. 2009. ‘Valence and Electoral Outcomes in Western Europe, 1976–1998’. Electoral Studies 28(1):111–122.Google Scholar
Conover, Pamela J., and Feldman, Stanley. 1986. ‘The Role of Inference in the Perception of Political Candidates’. In Richard R. Lau and David O. Sears (eds), Political Cognition. 127–158. Hillsdale, MI: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and Katz, Johnathan N.. 1996. ‘Why Did the Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections Grow?’ American Journal of Political Science 40(2):478–497.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elff, Martin. 2009. ‘Social Divisions, Party Positions, and Electoral Behavior’. Electoral Studies 28(2):297–308.Google Scholar
Elff, Martin, and Roßteutscher, Sigrid. 2009. ‘Die Entwicklung Sozialer Konfliktlinien in den Wahlen von 1994 bis 2005’. In Oscar W. Gabriel, Bernhard Weßels and Jürgen W. Falter (eds), Wahlen und Wähler. Analysen aus Anlass der Bundestagswahl 2005. 307–325. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
Ferrara, Federico, Herron, Erik S., and Nishikawa, Misa. 2005. Mixed Electoral Systems. Contamination and its Consequences. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Frietsch, Rainer, and Wirth, Heike. 2001. ‘Die Übertragung der Magnitude-Prestigeskala von Wegener auf die Klassifizierung der Berufe’. ZUMA-Nachrichten 48(25):139–163.Google Scholar
Funk, Carolyn L. 1996. ‘The Impact of Scandal on Candidate Evaluations. An Experimental Test of the Role of Candidate Traits’. Political Behavior 18(1):1–24.Google Scholar
Glass, David P. 1985. ‘Evaluating Presidential Candidates. Who Focuses on Their Personal Attributes?’. Public Opinion Quarterly 49(4):517–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granberg, Donald, and Brown, Thad A.. 1992. ‘The Perception of Ideological Distance’. Western Political Quarterly 45(3):727–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groseclose, Tim. 2001. ‘A Model of Candidate Location When One Candidate has a Valence Advantage’. American Journal of Political Science 45(4):862–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gschwend, Thomas, Johnston, Ron, and Pattie, Charles. 2003. ‘Split-Ticket Patterns in Mixed-Member Proportional Election Systems. Estimates and Analyses of Their Spatial Variation at the German Federal Election, 1998’. British Journal of Political Science 33(1):109–127.Google Scholar
Hayes, Danny. 2005. ‘Candidate Qualities Through a Partisan Lens. A Theory of Trait Ownership’. American Journal of Political Science 49(4):908–923.Google Scholar
Hogan, Robert E. 2008. ‘Policy Responsiveness and Incumbent Reelection in State Legislatures’. American Journal of Political Science 52(4):858–873.Google Scholar
Hummel, Patrick. 2010. ‘On the Nature of Equilibria in a Downsian Model with Candidate Valence’. Games and Economic Behavior 70(2):425–445.Google Scholar
Lau, Richard R. 1986. ‘Political Schemata, Candidate Evaluations, and Voting Behavior’. In Richard R. Lau and David O. Sears (eds), Political Cognition. 95–126. Hillsdale, MI: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lau, Richard R., and Redlawsk, David P.. 1997. ‘Voting Correctly’. American Political Science Review 91(3):585–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard R., Andersen, David, and Redlawsk, David P.. 2008. ‘An exploration of correct voting in recent U.S. Presidential elections’. American Journal of Political Science 52(2):395–411.Google Scholar
Lebo, Matthew J., and Cassino, Daniel. 2007. ‘The Aggregated Consequences of Motivated Reasoning and the Dynamics of Partisan Presidential Approval’. Political Psychology 28(6):719–746.Google Scholar
Manow, Philip, and Flemming, Peter. 2001. ‘Der Titel Als Politisches Distinktionsmerkmal. Eine Untersuchung Akademischer und Adeliger Wahlbewerber Zum Deutschen Bundestag 1949–2009’. Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 21(4):531–551.Google Scholar
Marschall, Stefan. 2014. ‘Profiling Users’. In Diego Garzia and Stefan Marschall (eds), Matching Voters with Parties and Candidates. Voting Advice Applications in a Comparative Perspective. 93–104. Colchester, Great Britain: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Merrill, Samuel III, Grofman, Bernard, and Adams, James. 2001. ‘Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Voter Projections of Party Locations. Evidence from Norway, France, and the USA’. European Journal of Political Research 40(2):199–221.Google Scholar
Miller, Arthur H., Wattenberg, Martin P., and Malanchuk, Oksana. 1986. ‘Schematic Assessments of Presidential Candidates’. American Political Science Review 80(2):521–540.Google Scholar
Pappi, Franz U., and Brandenburg, Jens. 2009. Wähler im Politikraum Des Deutschen Parteiensystems 1980 bis 2005. Working Paper 124. Mannheim, Germany: Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung.Google Scholar
Pierce, Patrick A. 1993. ‘Political Sophistication and the Use of Candidate Traits in Candidate Evaluation’. Political Psychology 14(1):21–35.Google Scholar
Rattinger, Hans, Roßteutscher, Sigrid, Schmitt-Beck, Rüdiger, Weßels, Bernhard, and Wolf, Christof. 2014. ‘Kandidatenstudie 2013, Befragung, Wahlergebnisse und Strukturdaten (GLES)’. GESIS Datenarchiv, ZA5716 Datenfile Version 2.0.0, Köln, Germany.Google Scholar
Rosar, Ulrich, and Klein, Markus. 2005. ‘Physische Attraktivität und Wahlerfolg. Eine empirische Analyse am Beispiel der Wahlkreiskandidaten bei der Bundestagswahl 2002’. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 46(2):263–287.Google Scholar
Rosar, Ulrich, and Klein, Markus. 2013. ‘Pretty Politicians. Die Physische Attrakvität von Spitzenkandidaten, ihr Einfluss bei Wahlen und die These der Personalisierung des Wahlverhaltens’. In Thorsten Faas, Kai Arzheimer, Sigrid Roßteutscher and Bernhard Weßels (eds), Koalitionen, Kandidaten, Kommunikation. Analysen zur Bundestagswahl 2009. 149–170. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
Rosar, Ulrich, and Klein, Markus. 2014. ‘The Physical Attractiveness of Front-Runners and Electoral Success. An Empirical Analysis of the 2004 European Parliament Elections’. Zeitschrift Für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft 8(2):197–209.Google Scholar
Saalfeld, Thomas. 2009. ‘Germany: Stability and Strategy in a Mixed-Member Proportional System’. In Michael Gallagher and Paul Mitchell (eds), The Politics of Electoral Systems. 209–229. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman. 2003. ‘Valence Competition in the Spatial Stochastic Model’. Journal of Theoretical Politics 15(4):371–383.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman. 2004. ‘Equilibrium in the Spatial “Valence” Model of Politics’. Journal of Theoretical Politics 16(4):447–481.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman. 2007. ‘The Mean Voter Theorem. Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Convergent Equilibrium’. Review of Economic Studies 74(3):965–980.Google Scholar
Schultze, Martin, and Marschall, Stefan. 2012. ‘Voting Advice Applications and Their Effect on Voter Turnout. The Case of the German Wahl-O-Mat’. International Journal of Electronic Governance 5(3/4):349–366.Google Scholar
Serra, Gilles. 2010. ‘Polarization of What? A Model of Elections with Endogenous Valence’. Journal of Politics 72(2):426–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shugart, Matthew S., and Wattenberg, Martin P. (eds) 2001. Mixed-Member Electoral Systems. The Best of Both Worlds? Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sieberer, Ulrich. 2010. ‘Behavioral Consequences of Mixed Electoral Systems. Deviating Voting Behavior of District and List MPs in the German Bundestag’. Electoral Studies 29(3):484–496.Google Scholar
Sieberer, Ulrich. 2015. ‘Using MP Statements to Explain Voting Behavior in the German Bundestag. An Individual Level Test of the Competing Principals Theory’. Party Politics 21(2):284–294.Google Scholar
Stoffel, Michael. 2013. ‘MPs with Competing Principals. A Theoretical and Empirical Contribution to the Study of Representation in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems’. Dissertation, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.Google Scholar
Stokes, Donald E. 1963. ‘Spatial Models of Party Competition’. American Political Science Review 57(2):368–377.Google Scholar
Stokes, Donald E. 1992. ‘Valence Politics’. In Dennis Kavanagh (ed.), Electoral Politics. 141–164. Oxford, Great Britain: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Stone, Walter J., and Simas, Elizabeth N.. 2010. ‘Candidate Valence and Ideological Positions in U.S. House Elections’. American Journal of Political Science 54(2):371–388.Google Scholar
Stone, Walter J., Fulton, Sarah A., Maestas, Cherie D., and Maisel, L. Sandy. 2010. ‘Incumbency Reconsidered. Prospects, Strategic Retirement, and Incumbent Quality in U.S. House Elections’. Journal of Politics 72(1):178–190.Google Scholar
Stratmann, Thomas, and Baur, Martin. 2002. ‘Plurality Rule, Proportional Representation, and the German Bundestag. How Incentives to Pork-Barrel Differ Across Electoral Systems’. American Journal of Political Science 46(3):506–514.Google Scholar
Wagner, Markus, and Ruusuvirta, Outi. 2012. ‘Matching Voters to Parties. Voting Advice Applications and Models of Party Choice’. Acta Politica 47(4):400–422.Google Scholar
Wüst, Andreas W., Schmitt, Herrmann, Gschwend, Thomas, and Zittel, Thomas. 2006. ‘Candidates in the 2005 Bundestag Election. Mode of Candidacy, Campaigning and Issues’. German Politics 15(4):420–438.Google Scholar
Zittel, Thomas, and Gschwend, Thomas. 2008. ‘Individualised Constituency Campaigns in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems. Candidates in the 2005 German Elections’. West European Politics 31(5):978–1003.Google Scholar